Appeal Decision 143 - Certificate of Lawful
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
October 2010 -
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
mid-terrace house, with an original two-storey rear projection. The application was for a proposed dormer, which
would have been predominantly on the side roof of the original two-storey rear projection, as well as on part of
the rear roof of the main part of the house.
The Council’s reason for
refusal was as follows:
“The proposed development
is not considered to be lawful because the proposed structure appears as a second storey extension rather than
an extension of the roof. As such the proposed eaves level of the structure is at a height of greater than 3
metres within 2 metres of the boundary contrary to the requirements of section g) Class A, Part 1, Class A, of
the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order (October
The Inspector stated the
“Guidance on the need for
planning permission for extensions to dwellings is given in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (Amendment) (No.2) ( England) Order 2008. Class A of Part 1 of the Order deals with enlargement,
improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, while Part B concerns the enlargement of a dwellinghouse
consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof. In each case a proposal has to satisfy a number of
requirements to be regarded as permitted development. The Council accepts that the present scheme satisfies the
requirements of Class B but considers however that it falls within Class A, whose requirements it cannot
satisfy. In the appellant’s view the proposal falls within Class B.
Helpful advice on the
interpretation of the Order has recently been given in a document published by the Department of Communities and
Local Government in August 2010 entitled “Permitted development for householders – Technical guidance”. Page 7
of the document makes clear that when determining whether a development proposal is permitted development, all
of the relevant Parts of the rules and all the Classes within those Parts need to be taken into account. It
further states that where a proposed two-storey extension at the rear of a house has a roof that joins onto the
main roof of the original house, as in the present case, the works will need to meet the requirements of both
Class A and (my emphasis) Class B to be permitted development.
In my opinion this advice
is clearly relevant to the matter before me in the appeal. It is common ground that the scheme satisfies Class
B. However, criterion (g) of Class A cannot be satisfied since the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse is within
two metres of the boundary and is greater than three metres in height. Page 21 of the document states that
“where any part of an extension to a house is within two metres of the boundary of the land surrounding the
property, then the maximum height of the eaves that is allowed for all parts of the proposal is three metres”. I
therefore conclude that the proposed development is not permitted by the Order and requires planning permission.
The appeal must accordingly fail”.
Where a property has an original
rear projection (with a roof at a similar level to the main roof) then an extension (e.g. a dormer) on the
roof of the original rear projection would need to be assessed against Class A and Class
would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the
“Reference Section” on “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and Class C”].
[Relevant to: “Interaction between Class A, Class B, and
Class C”, Class A, A.1(i), Class B, B.1(c)].
Links to the “Appeal Decision
Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
· Appeal Decision
· Council’s Delegated
· Council’s Decision
Download documents and diagrams of